All Activity

I recently found many useful information in your website especially this blog page. Among the lots of comments on your articles. Thanks for sharing. wengtoto daftar

Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this article is very nice and very informative article.I will make sure to be reading your blog more. You made a good point but I can't help but wonder, what about the other side? !!!!!!Thanks weng toto

Wow, cool post. I'd like to write like this too - taking time and real hard work to make a great article... but I put things off too much and never seem to get started. Thanks though. 오피스타

Pennsylvania is poised to legalize marijuana as soon as next year if Democrats can win a handful of key state legislative races in the November elections, a top lawmaker says. House Speaker Joanna McClinton (D) said at a Black Cannabis Week event on Friday that the state still has “a ways to go” to catch up with its neighbors that have already “moved in the right direction” by enacting marijuana legalization. While McClinton’s chamber passed a bill to legalize cannabis last year, it has stalled in the Senate, where Republican have a narrow majority. However, the “exciting thing” is that “Pennsylvania voters may go a different direction” by electing Democrats in November and helping them flip the three seats the party needs to take a majority in the Senate, the speaker said. “What it looks like for us to have change is we have to change who is making the laws in that chamber,” she said, urging voters to “do the best thing for people to have business opportunities, health improvement, community empowerment, restorative justice—things that are long overdue.” House Appropriations Committee Chair Jordan Harris (D) also spoke alongside McClinton on the Black Cannabis Week panel, noting that “attitudes are changing in Pennsylvania with regards to cannabis” but that “one of the reasons why we don’t have full adult use legalized here is because of the attitudes of a handful of members of the Pennsylvania State Senate.” “If we had those attitudes changed and/or the attitudes of their constituency, we would pass a bill out of the House, we would send it to the Senate and they would be able to run it,” he said. Harris, who oversees fiscal issues in his committee leadership capacity, said “it is the finances that’s going to finally drive the conversation, regardless of how we personally feel.” “At the end of the day, it’s going to be about the money, and I think that money is going to drive us to actually legalizing adult use very soon in the commonwealth,” he said. “Our friends in the bordering states are benefiting from us not legalizing cannabis,” Harris said, noting that Pennsylvania residents are crossing the border to buy marijuana. “We are missing out on that tax revenue here, and so for me, it would be a real boom to our economy here in Pennsylvania for us to legalize it.” Sen. Sharif Street (D), who has sponsored legislation to legalize marijuana for several sessions, said that if Democrats take a majority in the Senate, “we may be helping to move this process forward and having a different kind of say” as compared to his ability to advance legislation in the minority caucus. “Pennsylvanians in 39 days could put us in a position where we can have that,” he said. The Black Cannabis Week panel came ahead of a hearing on marijuana legalization that the Pennsylvania Senate Democratic Policy Committee held later in the day. Democratic lawmakers in Pennsylvania are continuing to push for marijuana legalization, including with a discharge resolution that Street filed seeking to bring a bipartisan cannabis bill out of committee. The measure, which was signed by every Democratic senator, aims to increase pressure on the chamber’s Republican majority to allow a vote on legalizing cannabis. The bill in question is sponsored by Street along with Sen. Dan Laughlin (R), who chairs the Senate Law & Justice Committee but hasn’t called the legislation up for consideration in the panel. The GOP chairman has instead focused on moving a separate bill to create a new Cannabis Control Board to regulate medical marijuana and hemp. That measure failed on the Senate floor in June amid partisan fighting about the best way forward for cannabis in the state. The marijuana legalization bill that Street wants to advance, SB 120, would allow adults aged 21 and older to possess up to 30 grams of cannabis flower, 1,000 milligrams of THC in edible products and 5 grams of concentrate. It would also create a process to expunge prior marijuana-related criminal records. If enacted, there would be an 8 percent excise tax on cannabis sales, alongside the state’s regular sales tax of 6 percent. The legislative maneuvering around the bill comes as a recent poll shows that Pennsylvania voters overwhelmingly support marijuana legalization—and that the largest share put the blame on Republican lawmakers for the fact that the state has not yet enacted the reform. Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) has repeatedly called on lawmakers to send him a marijuana legalization bill and for the last several years has included the reform in his budget requests to the legislature. Republican gubernatorial nominee Stacy Garrity, who is running against Shapiro, recently pledged to veto a marijuana legalization bill if lawmakers ever sent one to her desk—though she added that she doesn’t think the reform stands a chance of making it that far in the state. Her running mate for lieutenant governor, Jason Richey, claimed that legalizing marijuana would be “catastrophic” for the state, arguing it would increase the size of the illegal market, undermine job creation and harm public health. The governor earlier this year, as he has in past years, included cannabis legalization and the resulting expected revenue in his budget request. The House last year passed a bill to legalize marijuana and put sales in state-owned dispensaries, but the Republican Senate majority has criticized that plan while also not advancing a cannabis legalization model of its own. The state’s Independent Fiscal Office (IFO) reported in February that legalizing cannabis in Pennsylvania would generate nearly half a billion dollars in annual revenue by 2028, an estimate that is a significantly larger cash windfall compared to projections from Shapiro’s own office. A spokesperson in the governor’s office said the Trump administration’s federal marijuana rescheduling move is an “important step” that “adds support” to his push to legalize cannabis. A GOP senator also said that federal reform will make it easier to legalize marijuana in the state. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — Meanwhile, Laughlin is blaming the governor for the defeat of his bill to create a new Cannabis Control Board (CCB) to oversee the state’s medical marijuana program and intoxicating hemp products and that could also one day oversee recreational cannabis if it is legalized. Most GOP senators in the Republican-controlled chamber voted for the legislation from Laughlin, and all but two Democrats opposed it—with even some lawmakers who signed onto the measure as cosponsors ultimately voting against it. The measure would transfer regulatory authority for the state’s existing medical cannabis program from the Department of Health to a new seven-member CCB. The body would oversee cannabis permits, enforcement, seed-to-sale tracking, advertising, labeling, testing and other aspects of the legal industry. Moments after the bill’s defeat on the Senate floor, the chamber adopted a motion to reconsider—but it’s not yet clear when or if the legislation will get another vote. Laughlin’s legislation would also significantly restrict most hemp THC products, aligning the state with a new federal policy that is set to take effect later this year recriminalizing preparations with total THC content of more than 0.3 percent on a dry-weight basis or more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container. The action on the cannabis regulatory bill, SB 49, came shortly after the House of Representatives passed a bill to allow terminally ill patients to use medical cannabis in hospitals and other healthcare facilities. The post Pennsylvania Can Legalize Marijuana Next Year If Democrats Flip Three Legislative Seats, House Speaker Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly oppose an initiative on the November ballot that would roll back the state’s marijuana legalization law, according to a new poll. The survey, released on Thursday by The University of New Hampshire, shows that nearly three-quarters (71 percent) of respondents plan to vote against the anti-cannabis measure, while just 24 percent plan to support it. Another 5 percent said they don’t know or aren’t sure how they will vote on the proposal. The initiative—which would repeal laws allowing the regulated commercial sales of recreational cannabis and home cultivation while maintaining legal possession and continuing the medical marijuana system—had less support than any other Massachusetts ballot initiative included in the poll. Registered Democrats are opposed to the anti-cannabis proposal, 68 percent to 21 percent, while Republicans are against it, 62 percent to 29 percent. Unaffiliated voters oppose the measure 72 percent to 26 percent. The survey also asked voters how well they understand the various initiatives that are on the ballot. When it comes to the marijuana legalization rollback, 46 percent said they understand it very well, 32 percent said somewhat well, 11 percent said not very well and 9 percent said not well at all—indicating that supporters of the measure don’t have a large pool of voters who they can still educate about it. The poll involved interviews with 564 likely general election voters between September 17-21 and has a margin of error of +/-4.1 percent. A separate poll released last month found that Massachusetts voters oppose the marijuana legalization repeal measure, 55 percent to 33 percent. The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, which regulates the legal industry, announced this month that the state has surpassed $10 billion in adult-use cannabis purchases since the market launched in 2018. CCC Chair Chris Harding told Marijuana Moment that he can’t comment directly on the initiative and that the commission does not take positions on pending ballot questions or legislation, but he said that, in general, “repeal of the adult-use industry could eliminate thousands of jobs, hundreds of businesses and billions in tax revenue.” Meanwhile, a top labor union—the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Massachusetts State Council—is urging voters to reject the cannabis legalization rollback initiative. While the latest survey results provide some comfort to cannabis reform supporters, advocates are not resting. A coalition of Massachusetts marijuana business leaders, healthcare professionals and other advocates have launched a campaign to defeat the measure. The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) recently issued a warning that passage of the legalization rollback measure would have “disastrous political and economic consequences for legal cannabis markets everywhere.” “Even a too-close victory would spook markets and incentivize a rash of similar initiatives in states around the country, each costing millions to try and defeat,” the group said. After the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Office determined that organizers for the anti-cannabis proposal had turned in enough valid signatures to put the measure before voters, a marijuana reform advocate filed an objection with the State Ballot Law Commission claiming that various signatures were not genuine, obtained through fraudulent means or were not “signed substantially as registered.” The body rejected the challenge to the legal marijuana rollback measure, however, clearing it to go before voters to decide. In June, the campaign behind the anti-legalization ballot measure fired a signature gatherer it says was shown appearing to engage in “wholly unacceptable” conduct in a recent video. As Marijuana Moment reported, a man petitioning for the Massachusetts initiative as well as a similar anti-cannabis proposal in Maine was depicted in recent social media posts seeming to argue that voters who support legal marijuana access should sign the petitions in order to advance or protect reform. The campaign later said it has “zero tolerance for any circulation tactics that would mislead petition signers.” “The identified canvasser was immediately terminated, in coordination with our vendor, upon being made aware of the alleged conduct,” the group said. “The conduct apparent in the video would be wholly unacceptable and does not reflect how this campaign operates. We demand honesty, transparency and professionalism from everyone associated with our effort.” A video posted to Reddit of the signature gatherer shows the man collecting signatures outside a retail store in Massachusetts next to a sign that says “keep cannabis legal.” When confronted by a marijuana reform supporter who recorded the petitioner’s interactions with voters, he appeared to be trying to convince them that it is important to qualify the anti-cannabis measure for the ballot in order to then defeat it. “This is what we’re fighting against right here. That’s why we vote no,” he said. “If we can get this to the ballot right here, we vote no.” The person who captured the video pointed out that Massachusetts voters already approved marijuana legalization years ago, and that the only way it could be imminently repealed is if the new ballot measure qualified for the November election. If the initiative does not get enough signatures to go before voters, the state’s laws will remain the same. “It’s my job,” the petitioner insisted, however. “I know what I’m talking about.” “It’s a group of rich folks from out of state that want to basically take marijuana to when it was a medical marijuana card,” he said. “We don’t want that to happen.” The same man also appeared to also be gathering signatures for a separate measure in Maine that would similarly repeal laws allowing regulated adult-use marijuana sales and home cultivation rights for adults while keeping possession legal and adding new testing requirements for medical cannabis. A staffer for the prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), whose affiliated group SAM Action is largely funding the anti-cannabis ballot campaigns in both states, declined to comment about the petitioner’s conduct when reached by Marijuana Moment. The campaigns have previously been accused of misleading petitioning tactics. In Massachusetts, some voters reported that the campaign used fake cover letters for other ballot measures on unrelated issues like affordable housing and same-day voter registration during the first round of petitioning. Legal cannabis supporters filed an earlier formal complaint about the prohibitionist effort’s tactics, but the State Ballot Law Commission rejected the challenge. The measure also faced a legal challenge from cannabis industry operatives who argued it contains “impermissibly unrelated subjects,” and that the state attorney general’s official summary is “misleading and deficient.” The state Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments on the litigation challenging the anti-marijuana initiative but it ultimately ruled against the lawsuit. The governor of Massachusetts this week filed legislation proposing to increase military veterans’ access to medical marijuana by allowing them to receive patient cards without having to get a doctor’s recommendation. Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post Almost Three-Quarters Of Massachusetts Voters Oppose Ballot Measure To Roll Back Marijuana Legalization, Poll Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A new ad from the campaign of Nebraska independent U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn is highlighting his opponent’s claim that legalizing cannabis will lead to the death of children. “If you legalize marijuana, you’re gonna kill your kids,” Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) is heard saying in the ad that challenger Dan Osborn’s campaign released on Thursday. The comments are from 2021, when Ricketts was Nebraska’s governor. He was speaking at a press conference ahead of a vote in the legislature on a bill to legalize medical cannabis. While that legislation ultimately failed, Nebraska voters approved medical marijuana legalization ballot measures in 2024. This is the most honest Pete Ricketts ad we’ve seen. pic.twitter.com/uIl21C9cer — Dan Osborn (@osbornforne) September 24, 2026 Although Osborn’s ad opens with the Ricketts marijuana quote, it is otherwise focused on the senator voting in favor of funding cuts to Medicaid while receiving campaign contributions from insurance companies. That said, Osborn has often discussed his support for cannabis reform in detail. “In 2024, 71 percent of Nebraska voters voted to legalize medical marijuana but Pete Ricketts has sabotaged the will of the people at every turn,” the independent candidate’s campaign website says. “He spent $500,000 on ads lying about medical marijuana. He said it would ‘kill your kids.’ He lobbied against legislation that would have properly regulated it.” “I will stand up for patients and caregivers to make sure people can get the medicine that helps them,” it says. “I will not only stop the obstruction, I will actively work to support the adoption of medical marijuana in our state.” Beyond medical use, Osborn has said that the government should more broadly “stop putting people in prison for cannabis use.” “The cat’s out of the bag on this one. The current regime only makes it easier for high schoolers to score,” he said. “Ask anyone who’s underage what’s easier to get, beer or weed, and they’ll tell you. Our current policy is government overreach at its finest.” Ricketts, for his part, teamed up with a chapter of prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana in 2021 to appear in an advertisement arguing against medical cannabis. “The only difference between medical marijuana and recreational marijuana is word choice,” the then-governor said in the ad. “Doctors can’t prescribe it and pharmacists can’t provide it because it’s not medicine.” “Today the marijuana industry has set its sights on Nebraska. And the real goal is the legalization of recreational marijuana across the state,” he said. “We’ve seen what happens when progressive politics trump science and common sense. That can’t happen. It’s up to us to protect our kids and defend our communities. Big Marijuana’s way is the wrong way for Nebraska.” In addition to opposing medical marijuana in Nebraska, Ricketts has also taken a number of anti-cannabis steps since joining the Senate. He has advocated against the Trump administration’s move to reschedule marijuana, for example, and has cosponsored legislation that would continue to block cannabis businesses from taking federal tax deductions under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code 280E—even under rescheduling. Rickets has also opposed legislation to allow banks to work with state-licensed marijuana businesses. Photo courtesy of Max Pixel. The post Senate Candidate Highlights GOP Opponent’s Claim That Legalizing Marijuana Will Cause Children To Die appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“States need federal guidance on planned implementation to give them time to adjust laws and regulations and to give operators time to adjust their operations to meet federal requirements.” By Gillian Schauer, Cannabis Regulators Association The federal government’s successful implementation of a final rule rescheduling medical marijuana will depend heavily on state regulatory systems. Yet the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) headquarters has not meaningfully engaged the state regulators responsible for those systems—or the organization that represents them—despite offers to help address unresolved questions, identify conflicts between federal and state requirements and promote consistent implementation across the country. That engagement is especially important because the rescheduling rule itself relies extensively on state medical marijuana programs. Issued by the U.S. attorney general in April, the rule immediately moved U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved products containing marijuana, as well as cannabis “in any form covered by a state medical marijuana license,” from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). State programs are cited in the rule as being central to compliance with international drug laws and treaties. It says that state licensing systems “demonstrate a sustained capacity to achieve the public-interest objectives that underlie the CSA’s registration framework.” The attorney general further determined that incorporating those systems into the federal framework represents “the most effective and efficient means of achieving the CSA’s objectives” while promoting marijuana’s medical benefits and minimizing disruption for patients and existing state systems. State Officials And CANNRA Are A Resource To Aid In Policy Implementation As a nonpartisan, nonprofit association of state and territorial governments that regulate medical marijuana—the very regulatory regimes referenced throughout the rescheduling rule—the Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA) reached out to DEA following publication of the final rule in the Federal Register to assist with its implementation across states. CANNRA has continued to offer itself as a resource to DEA to share insight from governments with varied regulatory schemes. While DEA acknowledged our initial outreach, as well as some of our subsequent outreach, it has not met with or engaged with CANNRA, nor has DEA convened states to share information about the cannabis rescheduling rule. CANNRA is not an advocacy group and does not lobby for any particular policy. Our members are regulatory implementers, ensuring that policies passed into law are enacted on the ground. This uniquely positions CANNRA and our members to assist any federal agency seeking to implement cannabis-related policies and programs across states. CANNRA serves as a conduit of information to state regulators and continues to engage in efforts to educate regulators on rescheduling and foster information sharing across state and territorial governments, even without engagement from DEA. Fundamental Questions About Implementation Of The Rescheduling Rule Remain Unanswered In one letter CANNRA sent to DEA leadership, we shared a list of unanswered questions compiled from our members and requested a meeting to talk through them, even if they could not yet be answered. These include questions about how DEA will communicate and engage with states, what federal and state data sharing will be needed, how DEA is reviewing and interpreting differences among state laws in implementing the rescheduling and several core questions about the final rule itself. For example, will licensees in states with dual medical and recreational marijuana licenses be able to obtain DEA registration? Will DEA register licensees that have owners or employees with past criminal convictions, which several state programs allow by design? How will the federal purchase-and-resale mechanism work with state statutes governing product transfers and sales? What will DEA enforcement entail, and what will happen to state-legal, licensed operators that are not DEA-registered? Questions also remain about how to resolve areas where the final rule and state statutes conflict. For example, it states that documents certifying medical use—such as patient medical marijuana cards—must contain the name of the recommending practitioner, yet very few state statutes require that information, and some states have regulations or laws that could prevent compliance with such a requirement. The final rule also requires warning labels to comply with 21 U.S.C. 825(c), stating that it is a crime to transfer the drug to any person other than the patient. However, some state laws expressly allow designated caregivers, providers or dispensing agents who are not the patient to purchase, transport and grow cannabis on behalf of a patient. States need federal guidance on planned implementation to give them time to adjust laws and regulations and to give operators time to adjust their operations to meet federal requirements. DEA Regional Field Divisions Are Engaging With States While DEA headquarters has not engaged with CANNRA, a number of DEA field divisions have engaged productively with states. State regulators generally empathize with the task given to division offices, since regulators are no strangers to implementing brand-new marijuana regulatory programs. Communication between state regulatory agencies and DEA division offices has been welcomed and is essential to effective policy implementation. However, not all states have heard from their regional DEA division offices, including some states that have only medical marijuana programs. Information And Implementation Have Varied Across Regions Perhaps because fundamental implementation questions remain unanswered, information provided about the final rule, as well as approaches to its implementation have varied across regions. For example, state regulators across the country have received different answers about whether licensees holding both state medical and state recreational licenses or licensees with criminal records can become DEA registrants. Variation in information, implementation and communication creates confusion among licensees—many of whom operate across different states and DEA regions. It can also create enforcement challenges for state regulators. For example, if DEA requires alternate packaging or labeling and a state regulator is not aware that the federal agency has imposed a requirement that differs from state statutes, compliance and enforcement of existing state laws become increasingly complex. Varied approaches to implementation can also create uncertainty for patients and clinicians involved in state-regulated programs. DEA headquarters has reached out to most states to request data related to each state’s medical marijuana program. While the same data have been requested across states, state regulatory context and statutes vary widely. Understanding this variation in state regulatory policy and markets is imperative when interpreting any data and makes data aggregation across states difficult. This is another area where CANNRA can, and would like to, provide assistance. Without appropriate context, data could lead to policies that do not work in practice or cannot be implemented in all states. What Could Improve Implementation On The Ground? Cannabis regulators across the country have learned through their own state regulatory work that successful implementation depends on coordination across all levels of government, consistent implementation across licensees and license types and regular, clear communication both internally with government partners and externally with stakeholders and the public. Accordingly, implementation of the final rule could be greatly strengthened if DEA headquarters worked with state regulators and CANNRA to: (1) discuss variation in state policy and areas where federal policy may conflict with state statutes, or vice versa; (2) hear about regional variation in implementation of the final rule to inform a more consistent approach across the country; and (3) discuss ways to strengthen implementation of, and communication about, the final rule in collaboration with state government officials. As a nonpartisan, government-only association composed of the very state medical marijuana regulatory programs named in the final rule, CANNRA continues to stand ready to provide technical support to any federal government agency responsible for implementing marijuana rescheduling. Gillian Schauer is the executive director of the Cannabis Regulators Association, a nonpartisan, nonprofit association of state, territorial and international governments that regulate marijuana, cannabinoids and hemp. The post DEA Should Coordinate With State Officials To Ensure Marijuana Rescheduling Is Successfully Implemented (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

MA gov’s bill to increase veteran medical marijuana access; Study: Every legalization state sees reduced teen cannabis use; Psychedelic therapy op-ed Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… Your good deed for the day: donate to an independent publisher like Marijuana Moment and ensure that as many voters as possible have access to the most in-depth cannabis reporting out there. Support our work at https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW Texas Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ken Paxton has accepted more than half a million dollars in alcohol industry-linked donations to his political campaigns while taking steps to crack down on cannabis, a review of campaign finance records by Marijuana Moment shows. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) filed legislation proposing to increase military veterans’ access to medical marijuana by allowing them to receive patient cards without having to get a doctor’s recommendation. A new report from the Marijuana Policy Project shows that teen use of marijuana has decreased in every single state that has legalized cannabis for adults—contradicting opponents’ scare tactic messaging that claimed the reform would harm kids. Psychedelic therapist Melissa Scannell argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that access to substances like psilocybin or ibogaine is “not the entire treatment” and that successful therapy requires “careful preparation, skilled support and meaningful integration afterward.” “Access to a substance without access to a therapeutic container is not comprehensive mental health care.” / FEDERAL The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy announced nearly $70 million in Drug-Free Communities Support Program and Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act Local Drug Crisis Program grants. The Drug Enforcement Administration highlighted tips for students to stay safe in the context of drugs during the beginning of the school year. Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) filed an amendment to a college sports bill to prohibit agreements with student athletes that promote “gambling, tobacco or nicotine products, marijuana, alcoholic beverages, or sexually explicit commercial products or services.” Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) tweeted, “From mayor to senator, I’ve always been pro legal weed. While I don’t partake, it’s a freedom issue — adults should be able to make their own choice to use it or not.” / STATES Nebraska’s attorney general said he won’t be challenging the state’s voter-approved medical cannabis law anymore after losing in the state Supreme Court. The Michigan Senate amended and approved a House-passed bill to require officials to develop and distribute a notice on the effects of cannabis, hemp and nicotine products to schools. Florida regulators filed proposed changes to rules on background checks on medical cannabis business employees and owners. Maine regulators are considering changes to rules on medical cannabis research grants. Illinois regulators have granted approvals that double the number of dispensaries licensed to sell medical cannabis. Delaware’s top marijuana regulator visited a cannabis cultivation facility. Kentucky regulators posted an update on growth of the medical cannabis program. Georgia regulators will host a medical cannabis conference on October 16. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / LOCAL The Nevada City, California City Council approved a resolution making criminalization of psychedelics among the city’s lowest law enforcement priorities. Los Angeles, California officials announced that the first cannabis dispensary has joined the city’s Green Business Program. / INTERNATIONAL Scotland First Minister John Swinney said he supports decriminalizing drugs. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study provided “preclinical evidence that Lebanese Cannabis sativa L. crude ethanolic extract possesses antitumor and chemosensitizing potential in colorectal cancer models.” A review concluded that “results support MDMA-[assisted therapy] for PTSD core symptoms and quality-of-life measures.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The Hemp Beverage Alliance announced members of a supply chain advisory board. / BUSINESS Aurora Cannabis Inc. filed an application with the Alberta Securities Commission seeking an order requiring Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. to address “several deficiencies” in its unsolicited bid to acquire the company. Curaleaf took out a full-page ad in the New York Post calling on Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) to sign legislation aimed at addressing out-of-state cannabis entering the New York’s market. IM Cannabis Corp. regained compliance with Nasdaq minimum price bid requirements. Herbal Wellness Center in Jackson, Ohio reopened after a temporary closure that followed reports of adverse health effects from people who bought vape pens there. / CULTURE Matthew McConaughey spoke about smoking marijuana with Willie Nelson. Make sure to subscribe to get Marijuana Moment’s daily dispatch in your inbox. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images. The post GOP Senate candidate takes alcohol money while opposing cannabis reform (Newsletter: September 25, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Navigating fake agencies is frustrating for any gentleman. When you hire a Delhi Call Girl from our team, you get a verified companion with real photos. We ensure total confidentiality and cash-only payments upon meeting. Book a VIP model tonight and experience genuine intimacy without any risk. Reach our team now to confirm your booking.

“Access to a substance without access to a therapeutic container is not comprehensive mental health care.” By Melissa Scannell, Indiana Psychedelic Society For years, veterans living with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been asked to keep trying within a mental health system that too often offers symptom management without lasting relief. Many benefit from existing treatments, and those treatments remain essential. But others cycle through medications and therapies while still carrying nightmares, hypervigilance, depression, isolation and a nervous system that cannot recognize that the danger has ended. The Trump administration’s decision to accelerate psychedelic research and expand pathways toward treatment represents a meaningful shift. In April, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to reduce barriers to research and speed the evaluation of psychedelic therapies for serious mental illness. The order included a $50 million federal commitment to ibogaine research and called for greater coordination among the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA). That direction is already becoming action. VA launched an MDMA-assisted therapy trial for veterans with PTSD and alcohol use disorder in May. It has also launched the PIVOT trial, which will study psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression in veterans, including those who also have PTSD. In July, VA and HHS announced a five-year partnership to coordinate research, train clinicians and prepare the VA health system to implement psychedelic treatments that may ultimately receive FDA approval. VA reports involvement in 19 additional psychedelic clinical trials supported by more than $23 million in external funding. This momentum deserves recognition. It is also important to be precise about what it means. Psychedelics are not currently FDA-approved treatments for PTSD, and clinical access through the VA remains limited to research. The evidence is promising, not complete. Studies of MDMA-assisted therapy have shown significant reductions in PTSD symptoms, yet veteran representation in major trials has been limited. Psilocybin research for PTSD is even earlier. Ibogaine may hold potential for addiction and trauma-related conditions, while its cardiac risks make rigorous medical screening and monitoring especially important. As a trauma therapist and psychedelic-assisted therapist, I have seen why hope around these treatments is growing. Psychedelics may temporarily reduce fear, loosen rigid patterns and help a person approach painful memories with greater openness or self-compassion. For someone whose survival system has been locked in place for years, that opening can be profound. The medicine, however, is not the entire treatment. A psychedelic experience can surface grief, moral injury, traumatic memories, shame and parts of the self that a veteran has spent years trying to contain. Without careful preparation, skilled support and meaningful integration afterward, an intense experience may leave someone overwhelmed, confused or vulnerable. Access to a substance without access to a therapeutic container is not comprehensive mental health care. Preparation helps veterans understand what may arise, establish trust with their care team and develop tools for navigating fear and dysregulation. The medicine session requires psychological safety and clinicians trained in both trauma and altered states of consciousness. Integration helps a person make sense of the experience and translate insight into daily life: repairing relationships, changing destructive patterns, reconnecting with purpose and learning how to live differently in the nervous system and in the world. These elements also raise practical questions that policymakers must address now. Who will train and supervise the workforce? Will treatment models be culturally responsive to the experiences of women, veterans of color, survivors of military sexual trauma and those living in rural communities? Will veterans taking psychiatric medications receive careful, individualized guidance rather than being pressured to discontinue them? Will VA reimburse the full course of care, including preparation and integration, or only the day a medicine is administered? And will veterans have ongoing support if difficult material emerges weeks later? We must also resist turning understandable urgency into inflated promises. Calling psychedelics a cure or a miracle may encourage self-medication and expose vulnerable people to unregulated providers. Screening matters. Informed consent matters. Ethics, data collection and long-term follow-up matter. Veterans should not be forced to choose between the stagnation of the old system and the risks of a poorly built new one. This issue should not belong to one political party. VA’s return to federally funded psychedelic research began before the current administration, and today’s expansion reflects years of work by veterans, researchers, clinicians and bipartisan lawmakers. That continuity is a strength. It creates an opportunity to build policy around evidence and human need rather than ideology. America has asked veterans to carry experiences most civilians will never fully understand. We owe them more than gratitude, and more than another prescription. We owe them rigorous research, honest education and access to treatment that honors the complexity of trauma. The administration’s actions have opened an important door. Now federal leaders must ensure that what waits on the other side is not simply a drug, but a safe, ethical and fully supported pathway toward healing. Melissa Scannell, MA, LMHC, LPC, LPCC, RMT, is a 20 plus year-licensed mental health counselor, trauma specialist and psychedelic-assisted therapist. She founded the Indiana Psychedelic Society and facilitates a free weekly psychedelic integration group. Photo courtesy of Mark Groeneveld. The post For Veterans, Psychedelic Access Must Mean More Than Access To A Drug (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The governor of Massachusetts has filed legislation containing a provision aimed at increasing military veterans’ access to medical marijuana. Gov. Maura Healey (D) on Wednesday sent lawmakers a supplemental budget bill that touches on a number of issues, including one section that would allow veterans to receive a state medical cannabis card without having to get a recommendation from a doctor. Because the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) continues to prohibit its providers from filling out medical marijuana recommendation forms, many of their veteran patients are forced to either seek outside, often expensive physician consultations or go without legal access to medical cannabis. But if Healey’s proposal is enacted, veterans in Massachusetts will be able to become registered medical marijuana patients by providing state officials with “official documentation from the Veterans Administration indicating a diagnosis of a debilitating medical condition, without the need for a written or electronic certification from a healthcare professional.” In other words, VA doctors wouldn’t have to specifically recommend medical cannabis in order to help their patients get legal access and could instead just diagnose them with a qualifying condition under the state’s law. The governor’s bill also adds post-traumatic stress disorder and “a medical condition that produces chronic pain” to the definition of a “debilitating medical condition” that could qualify patents for medical cannabis. While veterans and other adults over the age of 21 are already able to buy recreational marijuana in Massachusetts, medical cannabis purchases are exempt from sales, excise and municipal taxes that apply in the adult-use market. Medical patients also have higher purchase limits than adult-use consumers, and have access to higher potency products than are allowed in the recreational market. “While President Trump is driving up costs with his war and tariffs, in Massachusetts, we’re doing everything we can to make life more affordable for people and businesses,” Healey said in a press release about the overall legislation. “This budget will lower costs at the gas pump, when buying concert and sports tickets, and on energy bills, while also making sure families can continue to access the health care, food assistance and services they rely on.” — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — The governor’s measure, if enacted into law, will also help to ensure veterans’ continued access to cannabis if voters approve an initiative on the November ballot to roll back recreational marijuana legalization. The measure would repeal laws allowing the regulated commercial sales of recreational cannabis and home cultivation while maintaining legal possession and continuing the medical marijuana system. A poll released last month found that Massachusetts voters oppose the marijuana legalization repeal measure, 55 percent to 33 percent. A top labor union—the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Massachusetts State Council—is urging voters to reject the cannabis legalization rollback initiative. The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, which regulates the legal industry, announced this month that the state has surpassed $10 billion in adult-use cannabis purchases since the market launched in 2018. CCC Chair Chris Harding told Marijuana Moment that he can’t comment directly on the initiative and that the commission does not take positions on pending ballot questions or legislation, but he said that, in general, “repeal of the adult-use industry could eliminate thousands of jobs, hundreds of businesses and billions in tax revenue.” In April, Healey signed legislation to double the legal marijuana possession limit for adults and revise the regulatory framework for the state’s adult-use cannabis market. In 2024, the governor approved a military veterans-focused bill that includes provisions to create a psychedelics working group to study and make recommendations about the potential therapeutic benefits of substances like psilocybin and MDMA. The post Military Veterans Could Get Medical Marijuana Without A Doctor’s Recommendation Under New Bill From Massachusetts Governor appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Opponents of marijuana legalization often claim that it will entice more underage kids to use it, but teen cannabis consumption has decreased in every single state that has enacted the policy change, according to a new report. The analysis from the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) tracks federal and state government survey data on youth cannabis use from the years before each state legalized marijuana for adults through the present. In every instance, fewer high school students are using cannabis today than they were before their state enacted legalization. For example, Colorado and Washington State were the first states to legalize in 2012. Since then, according to the Colorado Healthy Kids Survey, high school student use of marijuana has decreased by more than half (56 percent). The Washington State Healthy Youth Survey similarly shows that cannabis use has declined 62 percent for 8th graders, 73 percent for 10th graders and and 56 percent for 12th graders. In Massachusetts, where voters in November will consider a ballot initiative to roll back marijuana legalization, cannabis use by high school students has been cut in half (a 51 percent decrease) since the policy change was enacted a decade ago. High school students’ marijuana use has also decreased nearly 60 percent in Arizona, almost 50 percent in Michigan and nearly 30 percent in Nevada since each of those states respectively enacted legalization. “It’s simple economics,” MPP Executive Director Adam Smith said in a press release about the new analysis. “As consumers transition into a legal market, illicit operators start to go out of business. And illegal dealers are the ones who sell cannabis to kids. Licensed retailers have regulators to answer to, and everything to lose. They check ID every time.” The advocacy group’s report also includes new national data released this week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that shows that the percentage of U.S. high school students who use marijuana is now at an all-time low—even as more states continue to legalize cannabis for adults. The new federal data, released on Monday, shows that 12.9 percent of high school students currently consume cannabis, which is defined as having used it at least once in the past 30 days. That’s down from 23.1 percent in 2011—the year before the first U.S. states approved recreational marijuana legalization laws. “More than a decade into states legalizing cannabis for adults the data is clear: Legalization does not increase youth cannabis use,” MPP’s report says. “Moving cannabis sales from streets and schools to adults-only stores has been accompanied by reduced access and use of cannabis by youth.” Opponents of cannabis policy reform often express concern about impact on youth, but the data is clear: regulating cannabis for adults doesn’t lead to higher youth use rates — in fact, it does the opposite. https://t.co/lE1MneYEZD — Marijuana Policy Project (@MarijuanaPolicy) September 23, 2026 The group pointed out that many state that have legalized cannabis earmark a portion of marijuana tax revenue to youth education and prevention efforts. MPP’s report cites data from a number of national and state-level youth surveys, including the annual Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey, which is supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The latest version of MTF, released late last year, found that cannabis use among eighth, 10th and 12 graders “remained stable” even as mort states enacted legalization. The results are consistent with those from another federal study, the 2025 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), which was released in July. It showed that 8.7 percent of people between the ages of 12 and 17 used marijuana within the past year—down from 14.2 percent in 2011. The post Teen Marijuana Use Has Decreased In Every State That Has Legalized It For Adults, Contrary To Opponents’ Scare Tactics appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Texas’s attorney general—who is also the Republican nominee in a hard-fought race for a U.S. Senate seat in November—has accepted more than $500,000 in political donations from the alcohol industry while using the power of his office to crack down on cannabis, according to a review of campaign finance records. As attorney general, Ken Paxton has filed lawsuits seeking to overturn voter-approved local marijuana decriminalization policies in cities across Texas. His office has also defended hemp restrictions in court against lawsuits from the industry. That includes a recently enacted ban on certain hemp-derived THC products, including those containing delta-8 and delta-10 THC. Now classified as Schedule I drugs under state law, possession is treated as a felony, carrying a punishment of up to two years in prison and fines of up to $10,000. Paxton’s Democratic opponent for the Senate seat, James Talarico, supports marijuana reform and has suggested that Paxton has taken anti-cannabis actions in order to aid his political donors in the alcohol industry. “It doesn’t make any sense until you follow the money and realize that it is big beer and big tobacco that are funding the politicians, like Ken Paxton, who turned around and banned these safe THC products in order to enrich the big beer and a big tobacco lobby,” Talarico said in August. While Talarico’s suggestion that Paxton’s actions were undertaken to support any specific business can’t be verified, campaign finance records reviewed by Marijuana Moment show that alcohol industry interests have generously funded his political campaigns. Since 2014, alcohol industry political action committees and industry executives have contributed at least $509,806 to Paxton’s efforts to be elected to state and federal offices. Paxton’s state races have been fueled by at least $98,500 in checks from the Beer Alliance of Texas PAC, for example. During the same period, the Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas PAC chipped in at least $52,500 to Paxton’s state races, and the Texas Beverage Alliance of the Texas Package Stores Association contributed another at least $17,000, while the National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC donated at least $10,000. Most recently, in June of this year, the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America PAC made a $5,000 contribution to Ken Paxton for Senate. While the analysis is not comprehensive and may not include every alcohol industry-related donation to Paxton, it also shows that individual executives from alcohol companies have collectively donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaigns. Barry Andrews of Andrews Distributing Company, for example, has given Paxton’s campaigns at least $129,500 since 2014, while John Nau of Silver Eagle Distributors has contributed at least $76,568. See a list of alcohol industry-linked donations to Paxton’s campaigns below: Date Amount Name Employer Filing 6/23/2026 $5,000 Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America PAC 202607159875890641 10/11/2024 $10,000 Beer Alliance of Texas PAC 100988986 9/16/2024 $100 Crow, Frank Crow’s Liquor 100988986 8/26/2023 $50 McKinzie, Jerry McKinzie Liquors 100938354 11/14/2022 $2,000 Texas Beverage Alliance of the Texas Package Stores 100888682 10/20/2022 $5,000 Beer Alliance of Texas PAC 100905307 9/29/2022 $2,500 Johnson, John Silver Eagle 100876775 9/14/2022 $7,500 Huggins, Joe O Houston Distributing Co Inc 100876775 9/13/2022 $5,000 Donley, Rick The Beer Alliance of Texas 9/12/2022 $10,000 The Beer Alliance of Texas Political Action Committee 100876775 4/26/2022 $5,000 The Beer Alliance of Texas PAC 100863375 3/16/2022 $5,000 Beer Alliance of TX PAC 100863375 2/1/2022 $5,000 The Beer Alliance of Texas PAC 100855336 12/15/2021 $10,000 Wholesale Beer Distributors of TX PAC 100850113 8/25/2021 $200 Crow, Frank Crow’s Liquor 100850113 6/29/2021 $10,000 Andrews, Barry Andrews Distributing Company 100829374 6/26/2021 $10,000 McQuire, Natalie Andrews Distributing Company 100829374 6/24/2021 $5,000 Beer Alliance of Texas Politcal Action Committee 100829374 6/21/2021 $1,000 Stein, Sheldon Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits 100829374 9/29/2020 $500 Pisano, Paul National Beer Wholesalers Association 100812191 9/29/2020 $2,500 National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC 100812191 6/22/2020 $20,000 Andrews, Barry Andrews Distributing 100790338 3/2/2020 $2,500 Stein, Shelly Glazers Distributors 100790338 12/4/2019 $2,500 Brown, Laurie Brown Distributing Company 100774281 12/4/2019 $500 Herrmann, John WB Liquors 100774281 12/4/2019 $1,000 Jabour, David Twin Liquors 100774281 12/4/2019 $5,000 Texas Beverage Alliance of the TX Package Stores Assn. 100774281 10/9/2019 $10,000 Beer Alliance of Texas PAC 100774281 6/27/2019 $5,000 Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas PAC 100755810 6/25/2019 $15,000 Andrews, Barry Andrews Distributing 100755810 12/7/2018 $2,500 National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC 100755642 11/30/2018 $10,000 Andrews, Barry Andrews Distributing 100755642 9/20/2018 $10,000 Beer Alliance of Texas PAC 100722355 7/13/2018 $2,500 Morrison, Dean Budweiser Dist. Co. 100722355 6/26/2018 $10,000 Nau, John Silver Eagle Distributors 100712712 5/18/2018 $20,000 Andrews, Barry Andrews Distributing 100712712 4/20/2018 $10,000 Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas PAC 100712712 2/24/2018 $2,500 Brown, Laurie Brown Distributing Company 100712712 12/29/2017 $1,000 Del Papa, Lawrence Del Papa Distributing Company 100690774 10/13/2017 $5,000 Andrews, Barry Andrews Distributing 100690774 9/18/2017 $10,000 Beer Alliance of Texas LLC PAC 100690774 8/24/2017 $1,994 Gustafson, Stephen Falls Distributing 100690774 7/25/2017 $10,000 Dreeben, Alan Partner & Director 100690774 6/29/2017 $2,000 Andrews, Barry Andrews Distributing 100674309 6/29/2017 $10,000 Nau, John Silver Eagle Distributors LP 100674309 6/29/2017 $5,000 Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas PAC 100674309 12/9/2016 $5,000 National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC 100680074 11/29/2016 $15,000 Dreeben, Alan Republic National Distributing 100680074 11/29/2016 $10,000 RNDC PAC 100680074 11/29/2016 $2,500 Beer Alliance of Texas PAC 100680074 11/21/2016 $5,000 Gustafson, Stephen Falls Distributing 100680074 11/21/2016 $1,199 Gustafson, Stephen Falls Distributing 100680074 11/16/2016 $5,000 Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas PAC 100680074 9/21/2016 $10,000 Andrews, Barry Andrews Distributing 100680074 7/27/2016 $500 Gustafson, Stephen Falls Distributing 100680074 6/13/2016 $15,000 Andrews, Barry Andrews Distributing Company 100638095 6/13/2016 $5,000 McGuire, Mike Andrews Distributing Company 100638095 5/27/2016 $2,500 Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas PAC 100638095 3/28/2016 $2,500 Stein, Sheldon Glazers Distributors 100638095 10/10/2015 $5,000 Beer Alliance of Texas PAC 100638476 6/30/2015 $10,000 Andrews, Barry Andrews Distributing Company 100262673 6/29/2015 $15,000 Nau, John Silver Eagle Distributors LP 100262673 6/25/2015 $5,000 Wholesale Beer Distributors PAC 100262673 12/13/2014 $2,500 Andrews, Barry G. Andrews Distributing 643931 12/12/2014 $5,000 Del Papa, Lawrence Del Papa Distributing Co. Inc. 643931 12/12/2014 $15,000 Nau, John L. Silver Eagle Distributors 643931 12/12/2014 $2,500 Beer Alliance of Texas Political Action Committee 643931 12/11/2014 $500 Gustafson, Stephen Falls Distributing Company 643931 12/11/2014 $1,000 Jabour, David Twin Liquors 643931 12/11/2014 $2,500 Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas Political Action 643931 12/11/2014 $10,000 Texas Beverage Alliance of the Texas Package Stores 643931 12/9/2014 $1,568 Nau, John L. Silver Eagle Distributors 643931 10/20/2014 $5,000 Andrews, Barry G. Andrews Distributing 631291 10/10/2014 $1,000 Beer Alliance of Texas Political Action Committee 631291 9/16/2014 $5,000 Huggins, Joe Houston Distributing Company 628740 9/16/2014 $2,500 Beer Alliance of Texas Political Action Committee 628740 9/16/2014 $2,500 Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas PAC 628740 9/16/2014 $5,000 Beer Alliance of Texas Political Action Committee 628740 8/19/2014 $5,000 Andrews, Barry G. Andrews Distributing 628740 8/19/2014 $5,000 Stein ,Sheldon Glazers Distributors 628740 7/30/2014 $500 Pisano, Paul National Beer Wholesalers Association 628740 7/7/2014 $25,000 Nau, John L. Silver Eagle Distributors 628740 6/25/2014 $5,000 Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas PAC 621621 5/23/2014 $800 Remsburg, Cal Chameleon Distributors 621621 5/22/2014 $10,000 Trone, David Total Wine & More 621621 5/5/2014 $1,000 Gustafson, Reno Wichita Falls Distributing 615379 5/5/2014 $395 Gustafson, Reno Wichita Falls Distributing 615379 4/29/2014 $1,000 Licensed Beverage Distributors PAC 615379 4/11/2014 $5,000 Beer Alliance of Texas Political Action Committee 615379 One $10,000 contribution from the Wholesale Beer Distributors Of Texas PAC to Paxton in December 2021 came less than two weeks after the attorney general’s office filed an appeal of a court’s permanent injunction on state hemp product restrictions to the Texas Supreme Court. Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas has reportedly backed a campaign called Safer Texas Alliance that pushed lawmakers to enact restrictions on hemp THC products. The effort included a series of video ads, including one calling out what was described as a “predatory synthetic THC industry” that allegedly targets kids. In June 2019, Paxton’s campaign took a combined $20,o00 from Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas PAC and Barry Andrews of Andrews Distributing. Just weeks later, he joined other Republican officials in sending a letter urging prosecutors to keep pursuing marijuana cases even in light of complications that followed the legalization of hemp. Talarico, Paxton’s Democratic opponent for the Senate race, said in an interview with The Breakfast Club that keeping marijuana illegal while also moving to restrict hemp THC products is an “insane” form of “corruption.” “Think about what industries are most worried about THC products being readily available: Big Beer, Big Tobacco, right? And so they were the ones pushing this THC ban because it hurts their bottom line,” he said. “And a lot of research shows that THC—cannabis—these products are safer and less addictive than than beer or tobacco.” “And so to me, this is a prime example of what corruption looks like when you’ve got big industries buying politicians and pushing bills that harm people, but benefit them financially,” Talarico said. Marijuana Moment reached out to Paxton’s campaign for comment but did not receive a response. The Texas Democratic Party recently called out Paxton for refusing to answer a question about cannabis policy after he was recently shown in a video posted to X being asked what his thoughts are on the “state’s THC ban.” “I don’t know the details of it, but let’s talk later,” he replied before quickly stepping away. Democrats pounced on Paxton’s inability to answer the cannabis question, saying in a press release that he appeared to be “in a panic” when being pressed about the “incredibly unpopular” THC ban before proceeding to “run away” from the questioner. “Ken Paxton is a coward who runs from questions because he has no answers for his wildly unpopular positions,” Texas Democratic Party Spokesperson Ryan Martin said. “Paxton knows Texans hate this THC ban he has pushed onto people with his nanny-state agenda.” Talarico, meanwhile, isn’t the only Texas Democrat running this cycle who has attempted to link his Republican opponent’s support for cannabis restrictions to campaign contributions from sellers of other, legal drugs. A recent press release from the campaign of Vikki Goodwin, the Democratic nominee for Texas lieutenant governor, calls out “pharmaceutical and alcohol industry donations” to support incumbent Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), who has championed legislation to recriminalize many hemp products. Goodwin recently held a “Legalize It” rally in Houston and endorsed a local measure on that city’s November ballot to make misdemeanor marijuana possession the “lowest possible enforcement priority” and ban no-knock warrants. A press release from Goodwin’s team cited a poll from last year showing that a strong bipartisan majority of Texans support legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana. Last month, Goodwin separately claimed that Patrick pushed to ban hemp THC products in order to benefit alcohol companies, which happen to be among his substantial campaign contributors. “We’ve seen the lieutenant governor take hundreds of thousands of dollars from the alcohol industry, and that’s what drove the policy around the ban on THC,” she said. “I am in favor of treating THC like alcohol. A part of my healthcare plan is taxing THC like we do alcohol and cigarettes and use that for healthcare.” Similarly, the Bexar County Democratic Party said in a recent post on Facebook that hemp represents a “multi-billion dollar industry with over 14K small business owners and more than 50K employees.” “And the Texas Republicans just wiped them out,” it said. “Why? Could it be because Dan Patrick received $275K in donations from beer distributors and alcohol PACs?” While the bill that Patrick, who oversees the state Senate, favored was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Greg Abbott (R), the governor then issued an executive order on the issue and regulators have since enacted significant restrictions on derivatives from the crop. A judge last month declined hemp companies’ request to impose a temporary restraining order on the THC crackdown while the overall litigation is considered. The Texas Democratic Party has also noted that podcaster Joe Rogan, who lives in and operates a comedy club in Austin, has suggested that taking anti-cannabis actions is a political risk for Republicans. “They’ve done the THC thing,” he said. “Here’s what Texas doesn’t understand. You will fuck this place up and you will turn the whole thing blue.” “Kids will turn on you if you tell them they can’t smoke weed,” Rogan said. “They know weed’s not killing anybody.” Image element courtesy of Gage Skidmore. The post Texas GOP Senate Candidate Ken Paxton Took More Than Half A Million Dollars In Alcohol Industry Donations While Opposing Cannabis Reform appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Cannabis list as “high-risk” product in new congressional bill; Anti-drug group pushes hemp recriminalization; DEA vs. FDA on psychedelics Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… Your good deed for the day: donate to an independent publisher like Marijuana Moment and ensure that as many voters as possible have access to the most in-depth cannabis reporting out there. Support our work at https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW A new Government Accountability Office report concluded that federal agencies’ policies that govern the drug scheduling process have “gaps” that “may pose a risk”—a finding that comes as the Drug Enforcement Administration is considering broadly rescheduling marijuana. “DEA does not have any policies or procedures regarding how its staff are to conduct evaluations or schedule substances.” Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) and Del. James Moylan (R-Guam) filed a bill aimed at protecting consumers from online scams that includes a provision designating cannabis as a “high-risk” product that would require companies advertising it to undergo enhanced verification procedures. The Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America’s 2026 elections guide includes two questions about banning hemp THC products that it wants congressional candidates to answer before November. The Drug Enforcement Administration is moving to place five psychedelics in Schedule I as the Food and Drug Administration moves in the other direction by taking steps to accelerate therapeutic access to psychedelics. The Missouri Supreme Court heard oral arguments in case on whether regulators should be forced to award marijuana business licenses to a company in light of inconsistent application scoring procedures. / FEDERAL Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins met with the CEO of Americans for Ibogaine. The Internal Revenue Service filed a brief before a federal appeals court defending its rejection of a marijuana business’s tax deduction. Maine Republican congressional candidate Paul LePage, a former governor, said he opposes legalizing marijuana. Nebraska congressional candidates outlined their views on federal marijuana rescheduling. / STATES A Nebraska court is considering a cannabis business’s challenge to a civil investigative demand issued the state’s attorney general. Indiana officials published guidance about identifying cannabis-infused foods. A Minnesota cannabis regulator discussed the racist roots of prohibition. An Ohio marijuana regulatory spokesperson said that their role is not to oversee hemp products. California regulators sent updates about various cannabis issues. The Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency will hold a public meeting on Thursday. The U.S. Virgin Islands Cannabis Advisory board will meet on Thursday. Oregon regulators will discuss lifting a moratorium on certain marijuana business license types on Friday. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / LOCAL The Oshkosh, Wisconsin Common Council voted to set an age limit of 21 for hemp THC products. / INTERNATIONAL The Ontario, Canada Court of Appeal ruled that a vape pen with a THC sticker in a man’s car gave police reasonable grounds for a search. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A review concluded that “preclinical evidence supporting CBD as a treatment for [alcohol use disorder] remains strong, while emerging human data are mixed.” A study found “preclinical evidence that CBD exerts potent anti-tumor activity in” non-small cell lung cancer. / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS Americans for Tax Reform highlighted Michigan Republican gubernatorial candidate John James’s pledge to cut marijuana taxes. / BUSINESS Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. was added to the FTSE Canada All Cap Index. IM Cannabis Corp. entered into securities purchase agreements for the sale of shares for gross proceeds of approximately$1.31 million. / CULTURE Woody Harrelson gifted Jimmy Kimmel a giant joint from his cannabis dispensary. Make sure to subscribe to get Marijuana Moment’s daily dispatch in your inbox. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post Federal scheduling process has “gaps” amid ongoing marijuana review (Newsletter: September 24, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I haven’t any word to appreciate this post.....Really i am impressed from this post....the person who create this post it was a great human..thanks for shared this with us. alexistogel

Thanks for sharing nice information with us. i like your post and all you share with us is uptodate and quite informative, i would like to bookmark the page so i can come here again to read you, as you have done a wonderful job. pgwin138 login

“We have the FDA attempting to move forward a promising new treatment while the DEA is doing everything they can to obstruct its development.” By Jack Gorsline, Psychedelic State(s) of America Just one week after a historic public hearing on the future utility of psychedelic drugs at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is moving in the opposite direction. On Wednesday, 2026, DEA formally published a scheduling order to classify five obscure psychedelic tryptamine compounds as Schedule I substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), sparking immediate backlash from legal experts, researchers and mental health advocates. The scheduling order marks DEA’s second attempt to criminalize these specific compounds, following a heavily criticized effort that the agency was forced to withdraw in 2022. The renewed push highlights a potential fracture between federal agencies regarding the therapeutic viability of psychedelic substances, with DEA aggressively pursuing prohibition while FDA increasingly supports clinical exploration. The compounds targeted in the DEA’s latest filing are 4-Hydroxy-N,N-Diisopropyltryptamine (4-OH-DiPT), 5-Methoxy-alpha-Methyltryptamine (5-MeO-AMT), 5-Methoxy-N-Methyl-N-Isopropyltryptamine (5-MeO-MiPT), 5-Methoxy-N,N-Diethyltryptamine (5-MeO-DET) and N,N-Diisopropyltryptamine (DiPT). Currently unscheduled under U.S. federal law, these tryptamines belong to a class of psychedelics known for their hallucinogenic properties, though they remain relatively obscure outside of specialized clinical research settings. Historically, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, at least some of these compounds were previously classified as Schedule I drugs under the CSA. In 2022, DEA sought to broadly schedule all five substances, but a fierce public and legal pushback forced the agency to retreat and cancel a highly anticipated administrative hearing on the matter, giving scientists a temporary reprieve to continue their work. That 2022 resistance was spearheaded in part by prominent attorney Matt Zorn, who challenged DEA’s rationale and procedural maneuvers. In a notable shift of federal personnel, Zorn now serves as the deputy general counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), having taken the role under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in 2024. DEA’s justification for the ban relies on statistics that critics argue fail to demonstrate a significant public health threat. According to the agency’s own filing, there have been “a cumulative total of 518 encounters of these tryptamines by United States law enforcement in several states and the District of Columbia.” Notably, DEA omitted any specific timeframe for when this cumulative total was gathered, leaving it unclear whether these encounters span recent months or several decades. To bolster its case, DEA cited data from the America’s Poison Centers’s National Poison Data System (NPDS). The data revealed 65 exposure cases involving one or more of the five tryptamines over an 18-year period, from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2021. Yet, the filing simultaneously acknowledges a critical caveat: “no single-substance exposure cases involving the five tryptamines resulted in death.” Furthermore, DEA acknowledged that per HHS’s own report on the five substances, “FDA is not aware of any diversion from research or legitimate manufacturing activities.” This admission effectively undercuts the narrative that these compounds are bleeding out of legitimate laboratories and into the illicit market. A Clash With Medical Innovation DEA’s pursuit of a Schedule I classification is particularly jarring given the recent clinical momentum surrounding one of the targeted compounds. Earlier this year, Reunion Neurosciences received a highly coveted “breakthrough therapy” designation from FDA for its 4-OH-DiPT drug candidate. The company is actively developing the compound as a targeted treatment for postpartum depression, a debilitating condition that affects millions of new mothers worldwide. For legal advocates and researchers, DEA’s timing feels like an intentional attempt to chill scientific progress. Robert Rush, Esq., a prominent psychedelic attorney and the founder of the Rights and Reason Project, did not mince words when evaluating DEA’s motivations. “Schedule I has become the default for the DEA for any substance that is not FDA-approved and has any sort of psychoactive qualities,” Rush stated. “Many people mistakenly believe that the DEA has a different attitude regarding psychedelics versus other drugs. The actions of the DEA to once again move to schedule these five tryptamines, which have important research potential and are involved in active research, reflect the true position of the agency.” Rush pointed to the DEA’s historical legal strategies as evidence of their disregard for scientific inquiry. “The DEA has been very explicit, though they do not consider research harm in decision-making. During our DOI/DOC scheduling challenge in 2024, they argued that harm to the research is irrelevant.” He further highlighted the glaring contradiction between FDA’s supportive stance and DEA’s prohibitive one regarding clinical research. “This is particularly poignant with this example now because one of the compounds, 4-OH-DiPT, the prodrug, is currently in development for postpartum depression and has been granted breakthrough status from the FDA,” he said. “We have the FDA attempting to move forward a promising new treatment while the DEA is doing everything they can to obstruct its development. One foot steps on the gas while the other steps on the brake, and the taxpayers are left to pay for this whole mess.” Rush views DEA’s maneuver as symptomatic of a broader ideological crusade within the agency. “It is also interesting that after four years, the DEA decided to drop its previous scheduling attempt then decided to revisit it less than two weeks after a very positive FDA hearing on psychedelics,” he noted. “The DEA believes in the prohibition of all drugs unless they’re coming from a pharmaceutical company, and even then, they are willing to put roadblocks in the way of promising compounds to address the mental health needs of Americans.” “We still have a crisis of mental health issues and deaths of despair in this country, yet the DEA seems to think that research to address these issues is irrelevant and not a public health issue,” Rush concluded. “The Rights and Reason Project thinks this use of taxpayer-funded resources harms public health and scientific research, and we will be fighting this to the greatest extent possible.” This article was produced in partnership with Psychedelic State(s) of America—a nonprofit-sponsored news organization dedicated to rigorous independent psychedelic journalism. Subscribe to PSA online and Follow PSA on Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter/X and Facebook. Learn more about PSA and donate to the PSA Media Fund here. The post DEA Moves To Ban Several Psychedelics As FDA Takes Steps To Accelerate Legal Access To Therapies appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“I’m asking this court to make findings as to the proper score for each of these applications.” By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday challenging an appeals court’s decision in March directing the state to award cannabis company Hippos LLC 13 facility licenses after finding the 2019 application scoring process was inconsistent. It’s been five years since the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission denied Hippos’s appeal over its applications for marijuana facility licenses, after the company argued identical applications received different scores from the same grader. That dispute has since worked its way through the state court system and landed Wednesday before the seven Missouri Supreme Court judges. At issue is whether the commission acted properly when it rescored Hippos’s applications by selecting the most common score given to answers the company was challenging—or whether that approach was “completely flawed,” as three appellate judges found in March, because the grader left no notes explaining the scores. The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, which oversees the state’s cannabis regulatory agency, argued Wednesday that the commission acted correctly and did a thorough investigation of the scores given to Hippos’s applications. The department also urged the court to focus on the commission’s decision and not to rehash the state’s controversial grading process of marijuana applications as part of the case. “The Administrative Hearing Commission’s decision is under review here, not the department’s initial decision,” said Sean McDowell, an assistant attorney general representing the state. However, Chief Justice W. Brent Powell challenged that distinction, saying state law requires the court to combine “how the agency acted” and the commission’s decision. “Isn’t that how the statute indicates we should review this?” Powell asked McDowell. McDowell agreed, saying the commission “steps into the shoes” of the department, conducts a review and “their decision becomes the agency decision.” In March—just weeks before the appellate judges’ unanimous ruling in favor of Hippos—Missouri State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick issued a scathing state audit of the Division of Cannabis Regulation. The audit examined, among other issues, the state’s 2019 marijuana facility licensing process, citing erratic scoring, poor documentation and a process so opaque it cast doubt on the integrity of the results. When the state was working in 2019 to build the framework of Missouri’s now multi-billion dollar industry, it hired Nevada-based company Wise Health Solutions to score the nearly 2,000 applications. “In each of Hippos’s applications, there were many instances in which identical answers to the same question received inconsistent scores,” wrote Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District Judge Jeffrey Bates in the March ruling. “That should never have occurred if Wise’s scorers had followed the instructions that they were given. Neither the department nor Wise did anything to correct this situation.” The three appellate judges found the commission’s approach to rescoring was flawed “because there are no notes explaining why the scores were given,” the ruling states. “The conflict in these unexplained scores cannot be reconciled by simply assuming the more common score for a particular answer is the correct one,” it states. Fitzpatrick’s audit found scorers were instructed by Wise Health Solutions to take limited notes while scoring applications in order to reduce the amount of documentation that could be produced in litigation. The appellate judges agreed with Hippos that the commission’s decisions affirming the state’s denial of the company’s applications were “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and these decisions were not supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record.” McDowell argued Wednesday that the commission’s rescoring was valid because Hippos didn’t successfully “disprove the validity of the original scores.” Two witnesses for Hippos testified that the applications should have received higher scores, and the appellate judges noted that the state did not present experts to rebut their testimony. However, McDowell said the witnesses were cross-examined and one admitted that her interpretation of the grading system could be different than the graders. “It’s clear from the record the department contradicted Hippos’s expert witnesses,” McDowell said. Hippos’s attorney Austin Preston argued Wednesday that “simply asking cross-examination questions” wasn’t enough to rebut the witnesses’ testimony, and that the commission was required to make a finding about whether the witnesses’ information was credible or not. Supreme Court Judge Zel Fischer pressed Preston on that argument. “When cases are tried to the trial court, we do it all the time,” he said. “The assumption is that all facts not specifically found were found in accordance with the judgment. Are you suggesting that the administrative context provides a different presumption?” Preston said he believes case law requires it. The judges asked if Hippos is asking the judges to remand the case back to the Administrative Hearing Commission or to make a finding themselves. “I’m asking this court to make findings as to the proper score for each of these applications, which has been laid out, would satisfy the minimum cutoff and order those licenses be issued,” Preston said. McDowell responded that if the judges believe additional fact-finding is necessary, the case should go back to the commission. “I think the proper remedy would probably be to remand to the Administrative Hearing Commission,” he said, “because they were the fact finder in this case.” The court did not issue a ruling Wednesday. This story was first published by Missouri Independent. Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan. The post Missouri Supreme Court Hears Marijuana Business Licensing Case appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A new federal watchdog report is calling on agencies to improve their policies that govern the drug scheduling process—including how they evaluate substances and develop recommendations. The new U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report published on Wednesday comes as the federal government continues to consider whether to comprehensively reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III as was recommended by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In general, GAO found that the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) scheduling decisions usually aligned with HHS and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendations during the period of six years that it examined—but that both agencies lack important procedures for carrying out their responsibilities and to ensure consistency in the process. “We found that DEA and FDA have some policies that address aspects of the scheduling process; however, these policies have gaps,” the report said. “For example, DEA does not have any policies or procedures regarding how its staff are to conduct evaluations or schedule substances. In addition, FDA does not have policies or procedures specifying how its staff are to conduct evaluations or develop scheduling recommendations for substances.” “DEA does not have policies that assign roles and responsibilities related to scheduling substances, and neither DEA nor FDA have policies that describe the specific procedures staff should follow for fulfilling their responsibilities related to preparing scheduling evaluations and recommendations.” GAO said DEA specifically is lacking policies that identify roles, responsibilities and procedures for collecting and analyzing data prior to initiating administrative rulemaking; carrying out responsibilities related to new drug application scheduling; conducting a three-factor analysis and making findings to issue a temporary scheduling order; conducting an eight-factor analysis and making findings to determine schedule placement; or considering HHS scientific and medical evaluations and scheduling recommendations and making final scheduling decisions. FDA, for its part, does not have policies or procedures that: outline how its staff are to conduct an eight-factor analysis or make scheduling recommendations; or clearly define the criteria and process for determining a substance’s “potential for abuse,” including its abuse potential relative to other substances. “These policies have gaps that may pose a risk to the consistency of DEA’s and FDA’s future operations in the event of staff turnover or any other disruption that could lead to a loss of institutional knowledge,” the report said. GAO noted that an FDA memorandum of understanding with the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) that describes procedures for consulting on scheduling recommendations is over 40 years old and, as such, is “outdated because it does not reflect the current entities involved or procedures.” GAO is making three recommendations to improve the drug scheduling process: The Administrator of DEA should develop policies and procedures that identify DEA’s roles, responsibilities, and procedures for evaluating and scheduling substances through administrative scheduling, new drug application scheduling, temporary scheduling, and international treaty scheduling under relevant statutes (including collecting and evaluating data, conducting three-factor and eight-factor analyses, and determining scheduling decisions). The Commissioner of FDA should develop policies and procedures that Center for Drug Evaluation and Research staff are to use to when completing eight-factor evaluations and developing scheduling recommendations, including the criteria and process for determining a substance’s “potential for abuse,” including abuse potential relative to other substances. The Commissioner of FDA and the Director of NIH should update their memorandum of understanding (MOU) concerning developing drug scheduling recommendations. The updated MOU should reflect the current entities involved and procedures and include a term clause to ensure the MOU is regularly reviewed. The watchdog said that the Department of Justice, DEA, HHS, FDA and NIH have all agreed with the recommendations. Depending on the process through which a drug is being scheduled—via administrative scheduling, new drug application scheduling, temporary scheduling, international treaty scheduling through domestic scheduling orders or legislation—DEA is sometimes required to consider recommendations and medical and scientific evaluations from HHS. During the period GAO examined—2020 through 2025—DEA was required to do so for 95 of the 208 substances for which the agency took scheduling actions, and it did so 100 percent of the time. The agency’s final scheduling decision aligned with HHS recommendations for all 84 substances for which it published a final scheduling decision, while the remaining 11 were still subject to extended temporary scheduling orders. DEA and FDA officials told GAO that “differences of scientific opinion between the two agencies about a substance’s schedule are rare, but they have occurred,” the report said. “In such cases, they typically discuss their differences, share data and other information, and resolve any differences before DEA solicits public comments.” GAO said that it conducted the new evaluation because “members of Congress have raised questions and concerns about how DEA considers scientific and medical evaluations and scheduling recommendations from HHS when making its decisions.” “A substance’s schedule and quantity control the extent to which criminal penalties under the Controlled Substances Act may be levied regarding its illegal manufacturing, distribution, or possession. In recent years, members of the public, interest groups, and elected officials have raised questions about how certain substances are scheduled under the act.” “For example, substances such as marijuana have been legalized in some states for medical use,” the report said, noting that Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order immediately moving marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license from Schedule I of the CSA to Schedule III, along with marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A DEA hearing that recently concluded testimony is considering broader marijuana rescheduling. The GAO report included an appendix focused on the ongoing cannabis rescheduling process, and noted that it involved a new two-part test to evaluate marijuana’s medical value was sanctioned by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. “In April 2024, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion related to questions on the potential rescheduling of marijuana. One issue addressed by the Office of Legal Counsel was whether a substance that satisfies HHS’s two-part inquiry was sufficient to establish a currently accepted medical use under the statute, even if the substance has not been approved by the FDA and does not satisfy DEA’s five-part test. According to the Office of Legal Counsel, DEA’s approach to determining whether a substance had a currently accepted medical use was an impermissibly narrow interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act and that satisfying HHS’s two-part inquiry was sufficient to establish a substance had a currently accepted medical use. This was still the case, even if the substance had not been approved by the FDA and did not satisfy DEA’s test.” That office, it noted, also determined that moving cannabis to Schedule III would not violate the U.S.’s international treaty obligations. A DEA administrative law judge is currently considering testimony in the marijuana rescheduling hearing. After he issues a recommendation, DEA Administrator Terrance Cole will make the final determination on whether cannabis is comprehensively moved to Schedule III. That said, the marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently rejected a drug testing industry association and a pharmaceutical company’s request to block the Trump administration from moving forward with cannabis rescheduling while the litigation is considered. The post Federal Watchdog Agency Says Drug Scheduling Process Has ‘Gaps’ As DEA’s Marijuana Review Continues appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A bipartisan pair of congressional lawmakers filed a new bill aimed at protecting consumers from online scams that includes a provision designating cannabis as a “high-risk” product that would require companies advertising it to undergo enhanced verification procedures. The Stopping Abuse and Fraud Enabled by Platforms Act, or the SAFE Platforms Act, introduced last week by Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) and Del. James Moylan (R-Guam), would generally require online platforms to adopt safety features to prevent the posting of fraudulent content. The key provision of concern for the marijuana industry would mandate that covered online platforms require advertisers in so-called “high-risk categories” to meet enhanced verification criteria, including submitting additional documentation to validate identity and business operations and undergoing a review of their online presence and business history. They would also need to be periodically re-verified. The legislation, H.R. 10433, specifies a number of categories of high-risk products and services, including “tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, and other consumables restricted by age.” Other such industries include financial services and investment opportunities, health products and services, educational credentials and certification, housing and real estate, gambling and unregulated financial products, including cryptocurrency and non-fungible tokens. The Federal Trade Commission would also be authorized to designate other industries as high-risk though regulatory action. A covered platform subject to the requirements would be defined by the bill as a provider of an interactive computer service that enables users to view or interact with information provided by an information content provider and that has at least 100,000 monthly active users or generates annual gross revenue in excess of $25 million. The legislation in general includes a number of other provisions aimed at protecting senior citizens and other vulnerable populations from online scams, including requiring platforms to detect and prevent the creation of fraudulent profiles, implement a “Report Scam” button on all content that could contain advertising and institute accessibility and design requirements for ad content. “Online and AI-enabled scams are becoming more sophisticated and more devastating,” Foushee said in a press release. “Scammers often exploit platform features to target users—especially seniors, veterans and other communities—with few consequences for the platforms that enable and profit from this abuse.” “The SAFE Platforms Act sets clear guardrails and safety-by-design requirements so digital platforms verify advertisers, protect users’ privacy by default and take steps to prevent fraud,” she said. Moylan said that “online scams are becoming more sophisticated, and families should not be left to bear the consequences while the platforms being used to facilitate these schemes face little accountability.” “The SAFE Platforms Act puts commonsense safeguards in place to help prevent fraud before it happens, protect consumers’ personal and financial information, and give victims meaningful recourse when they are harmed,” he said. In July, the House of Representatives passed a separate bill aimed at protecting children online that could also create complications for advertisers trying to promote legal marijuana and other regulated substances. Under the Kids Internet and Digital Safety (KIDS) Act, online platforms would be prohibited from facilitating the “advertising of narcotic drugs, cannabis products, tobacco products, gambling, or alcohol to a user of or visitor to the covered platform who the provider knows is a minor.” The provision around drug use lists the “distribution, sale, or use of narcotic drugs, tobacco products, cannabis products, gambling, or alcohol” as risks that platforms would need to actively guard minors against. Meanwhile, in August, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee advanced a similar bill, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), that contains an additional provision specifically requiring video streaming services to “employ measures that safeguard against serving advertising for narcotic drugs, cannabis products, tobacco products, gambling, or alcohol directly to the account or profile of an individual that the service knows is a minor.” The post Cannabis Would Be Considered A ‘High-Risk’ Product With Additional Advertising Restrictions Under New Congressional Bill appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

An anti-drug group is seeking to mobilize voters to ask U.S. House and Senate candidates about their stances on hemp THC products as the November elections approach. The Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) included two questions about the issue in its 2026 Congressional Election Guide amid recent developments on Capitol Hill concerning the crop and its derivatives. Hemp derivatives with less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis were federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill that Trump signed during his first term in office. But late last year, the president signed new legislation containing provisions that redefined hemp to make it so only products with 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container would remain legal after November 12. Now, however, under provisions included in a funding bill Trump signed this month, the effective date of the ban for most products is being pushed back to December 11 to give lawmakers more time to craft regulations for hemp derivatives. There is a carve-out, however, to allow the recriminalization on November 12 of synthetic cannabinoids “that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant.” CADCA’s election guide touches on a number of drug policy issues it wants candidates for federal office to be asked about—including prevention, treatment, e-cigarettes, kratom and more. The hemp-related questions it has for congressional candidates read: “1. Intoxicating hemp products include a rapidly changing range of cannabinoids and formulations that can be modified or reengineered as laws change, allowing the market to evolve faster than laws and regulations can respond. Many health and safety risks also arise from the cannabinoids themselves and therefore cannot be eliminated through age restrictions, labeling, potency limits, or licensing. Do you support excluding products containing intoxicating amounts of cannabinoids from the federal definition of hemp? 2. Congress enacted changes to the federal definition of hemp that are scheduled to take effect in November 2026. These changes would result in the removal of most intoxicating hemp products from convenience stores, smoke shops, grocery stores, and online. Do you support allowing these already enacted changes to take effect without further delays?” The second hemp question in the guide is somewhat moot now that Trump has signed the legislation delaying most parts of the ban past November, but the group may still be wondering whether candidates would support moving the effective date even further. This isn’t the first time that CADCA has advocated on the issue. It led a sign-on letter in 2024 pressing Congress to ban intoxicating hemp products. CADCA has also previously worked to oppose bills to federally legalize marijuana and to ease cannabis businesses’ access to banking services. On the other side of the hemp debate, advocates for convenience stores recently discussed their views that the retail outlets are an ideal place to continue to sell hemp products under any new regulations that are enacted. Members of Congress, meanwhile, are debating how—and whether—the crop’s derivatives should be regulated as an alternative to prohibition. Several Republican lawmakers recently spoke to Marijuana Moment about the kinds of rules they would like to see enacted to keep hemp THC products legal. A number of lawmakers from both chambers and both parties have filed or are circulating a growing number of bills to prevent the scheduled federal recriminalization of hemp THC drinks and other products. Until now, none of those proposals have gained traction with congressional leaders. For example, Reps. Beth Van Duyne (R-TX) and Greg Landsman (D-OH) filed a bill to keep hemp THC drinks legal while taxing and regulating them like alcohol. Rep. James Comer (R-KY), who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is circulating legislation that would delay a planned federal ban on hemp THC products and institute some regulations—including packaging requirements, testing rules and age limits. Separately, Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY), filed a lengthier proposal to prevent the federal recriminalization of hemp THC products and put in place a number of regulations for manufacturing, labeling, sales and taxation of hemp-derived products, including an age limit of 21. Trump and White House officials repeatedly pressed Congress to delay, alter or reverse the ban in recent months. In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) in June, for example, White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought said the Trump administration wants lawmakers to “ensure the fair treatment of hemp products”—specifically citing Barr’s earlier amendment to keep many hemp products legal while adding regulations and taxes. The administration “welcomes the opportunity to work with the Congress to, at a minimum, update the statutory definition of final hemp-derived cannabinoid products to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products,” OMB separately said in June, “while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks.” Also in April, the president himself urged congressional lawmakers to again redefine hemp to avoid recriminalization of full-spectrum CBD products. “I am calling on Congress to update the Law to ensure that Americans can continue to access the full-spectrum CBD products they have come to rely on, and that help them, while preserving Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose Health risks,” Trump said in a Truth Social post. “We must get this done RIGHT and FAST, especially for those who saw that CBD helps them,” he said. “Plus, I am told it will also help our GREAT FARMERS, who we love, and will always be there for.” Industry advocates say that the law as enacted last year not only threatens to prohibit intoxicating and synthetic cannabinoid products but also stands to remove popular full-spectrum CBD products that many Americans use therapeutically from the market. “ONE in FIVE adults used it in the past year, and many say it improved their chronic pain enormously,” the president said in his social media post, adding that hemp-derived CBD “has made a HUGE difference for so many people.” He also referenced a new initiative the administration launched in April to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients. The program being implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) focuses largely on CBD but also allows products to have up to 3 milligrams of total THC per serving. A federal judge granted the government’s motion to dismiss marijuana legalization opponents’ lawsuit challenging the initiative, but that is being appealed. “In December, I signed a very important Executive Order calling for Research and Innovation for Hemp-derived CBD,” Trump said. “Our wonderful Dr. Mehmet Oz moved fast to follow the directive in the Executive Order, and launched a model for some Seniors earlier this month. But more must be done!” “Please get it done, and SOON,” the president said in reference to a congressional fix for the broad recriminalization set to take effect in November. “Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Some members of the alcohol industry have also urged Congress to regulate, rather than ban, hemp products. The National Restaurant Association recently sent a letter urging congressional leaders to delay the federal recriminalization of hemp THC beverages and replace it with a regulatory framework that “ensures consumer safety while meeting growing market demand” for the products as an alternative to alcohol. Major retailer Target, meanwhile, recently moved to expand its sales of hemp THC drinks into more states. Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post Anti-Drug Coalition Wants Voters To Pressure Candidates About Banning Hemp THC Products Ahead Of November Elections appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Should MI marijuana biz trust GOP gov candidate?; Insurance industry backs cannabis coverage bill; Study: Seniors & cannabis use; OR psilocybin rules Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… BREAKING: Journalism is often consumed for free, but costs money to produce! While this newsletter is proudly sent without cost to you, our ability to send it each day depends on the financial support of readers who can afford to give it. So if you’ve got a few dollars to spare each month and believe in the work we do, please consider joining us on Patreon today. https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW A new federal study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that teen marijuana use has hit an all-time low as more states legalize cannabis for adults. A Michigan Democratic senator says the marijuana industry is wrong to trust Republican gubernatorial candidate John James to follow through on his pledge to cut cannabis taxes—citing the GOP politician’s opposition to the ballot initiative that legalized marijuana in the state in the first place in 2018. The American Property Casualty Insurance Association, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, American Council of Life Insurers and other trade associations are calling on Congress to pass a bill aimed at easing coverage for marijuana businesses that are legal under state law. A new federally funded study found that one out of ten senior citizens used marijuana with the past day, and that “cannabis was most often used to get high (60.0%), relieve tension (55.7%), sleep (52.9%), or relieve chronic pain (30.0%).” “Findings suggest that cannabis use among older adults may be more common and clinically significant than suggested by prior evidence.” The Oregon Health Authority is dropping an effort to significantly increase psilocybin business licensing fees that advocates said could have devastated the state’s legal psychedelic services industry. / FEDERAL Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins discussed the Trump administration’s steps to accelerate psychedelic research. The Drug Enforcement Administration is moving to place several psychedelics in Schedule I. Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) detailed his opposition to federal marijuana rescheduling, while Democrat Becky Stille and other challengers outlined their support for the reform. The House bill to keep hemp THC drinks federally legal got one new cosponsor for a total of four. / STATES California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a budget bill that appropriates $4.7 million to support psychedelic research. The Virginia legislature’s Joint Commission to Oversee the Transition of the Commonwealth into a Cannabis Retail Market met. A Michigan House candidate spoke about his prior marijuana arrest. The Arkansas Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a dispute between medical cannabis regulators and a business on Thursday. Indiana officials published information about marijuana and maternal health and breastfeeding. The Rhode Island Cannabis Advisory Board will meet on Thursday. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / LOCAL A judge rejected a challenge to a Menominee, Michigan referendum concerning the number marijuana retail licenses. The Oshkosh, Wisconsin Common Council is considering a proposal to institute age limits on certain hemp products. / INTERNATIONAL Thailand’s Cabinet approved legislation to tighten controls on cannabis. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study highlighted medical cannabis’s “perceived utility in managing symptoms among [young adult] cancer survivors, alongside fragmented policies/systems impeding evidence-based information or healthcare provider input.” A study found that “students perceive cannabis-related discipline as harmful and disproportionate to the offense.” / BUSINESS Vireo Growth Inc. completed its acquisition of M3 Wellness. Trulieve Cannabis Corp. has been added to the S&P Total Market Index and S&P Completion Index. Make sure to subscribe to get Marijuana Moment’s daily dispatch in your inbox. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: The post Teen cannabis use hits all-time low, federal report shows (Newsletter: September 23, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

This guide makes heavy duty towing easier to understand The River Opus Dorset Gardens Clovelle of Woodlands Bedok Rise Residences Chencharu Central Residences One Chuan Grove

Shahdara is one of Delhi's oldest and most vibrant areas, known for its rich history, bustling markets, and lively streets. It's a place where tradition meets modern life. But even in such an energetic area, your evenings can feel empty without the right company. Our Shahdara Escort are here to make your stay truly special. These stunning women are friendly, warm, and know how to make you feel comfortable. Whether you want to enjoy a quiet dinner, explore the local markets, or just relax in your hotel room, they're perfect for any occasion. With verified profiles and quick delivery, your dream companion is just a call away.

The percentage of U.S. high school students who use marijuana is now at an all-time low—even as more states continue to legalize cannabis for adults—according to the latest results of a biennial survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The new federal data, released on Monday, shows that 12.9 percent of high school students currently consume cannabis, which is defined as having used it at least once in the past 30 days. That’s down from 23.1 percent in 2011—the year before the first U.S. states approved recreational marijuana legalization laws. In other words, the number of high school students who use marijuana has decreased by almost half—44 percent—since states started enacting adult-use legalization. The latest numbers also show a continued decrease from the prior version of the CDC marijuana use data in 2023, when 17 percent of high school students reported currently consuming cannabis. The ongoing decline contradicts claims from opponents of legalizing cannabis who have often argued that the policy change would lead to skyrocketing youth use rates. In fact, the opposite has occurred, according to the new federal report. “Sensational claims that adult-use legalization laws are linked with greater marijuana use by teens are simply not backed by reliable data,” NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said. “These government findings ought to reassure lawmakers that cannabis access can be legally regulated in a manner that is safe, effective and that does not inadvertently impact young people’s habits.” Aside from the past-month measure, CDC’s 2025 Youth Risk Behavior Survey also shows that the number of high school students who have ever consumed cannabis has fallen from 39.9 percent in 2011 to just 25.5 percent last year. The results are consistent with those from another federal study, the 2025 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), which was released in July. It showed that 8.7 percent of people between the ages of 12 and 17 used marijuana within the past year—down from 14.2 percent in 2011. Prior research also suggests that marijuana use by young people has generally fallen in states that legalize it for adults. A report from the advocacy group Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), for example, found that youth marijuana use declined in 19 out of 21 states that legalized adult-use marijuana—with teen cannabis consumption down an average of 35 percent in the earliest states to legalize. The report cited data from a series of national and state-level youth surveys, including the annual Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey, which is supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The latest version of MTF, released late last year, found that cannabis use among eighth, 10th and 12 graders “remained stable” even as mort states enacted legalization. A separate federally funded study out of Canada found that that youth marijuana use rates declined after the country legalized cannabis. A Canadian government report similarly found that daily or near-daily use rates by both adults and youth have held steady over the last six years after the country enacted legalization. Another U.S. study reported a “significant decrease” in youth marijuana use from 2011 to 2021—a period in which more than a dozen states legalized marijuana for adults—detailing lower rates of both lifetime and past-month use by high-school students nationwide. Separately, a research letter published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2024 said there’s no evidence that states’ adoption of laws to legalize and regulate marijuana for adults have led to an increase in youth use of cannabis. Another JAMA-published study similarly found that neither legalization nor the opening of retail stores led to increases in youth cannabis use. In 2023, meanwhile, a U.S. health official said that teen marijuana use has not increased “even as state legalization has proliferated across the country.” The post Teen Marijuana Use Hits All-Time Low As More States Legalize It For Adults, Federal Data Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net